A few proofs I promised. Note that a theist, by relaxing one or more premise of each argument could, in fact, make it possible. But The premises are based on the most common beliefs in monotheism. Also, note that they are to be taken with greater credence than proofs FOR the existence of a god. This is for the same reason that it is easier to disprove a theory in science than to prove it; extraordinary claims (like the existence of god) require extraordinary evidence. The proofs come from God: The Failed Hypothesis and from The Nonexistence of God. I have annotated them in italics to make them ever easier to follow (though I feel personally that the average individual can follow them quite handily; but I will allow for no possible confusion).
A Perfect Creator Cannot Exist
1. If God exists, he is perfect. (Given)
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe. (Given)
3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect. (Given)
4. The Universe is not perfect. (From observable evidence)
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe. (From 3 and 4)
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist. (From 1, 2, and 5)
As you can see, these are far from perfectly clear. But, we press onward.
Worship and Moral Agency
1. If any being could be God, he must be a fitting object of worship. (By definition of God)
2. Worship requires the abandonment of one's role as an autonomous moral agent. (By definition of worship)
3. Humans are autonomous moral agents. (From observable evidence and definition of a human)
4. Therefore, there is no god. (From 1, 2, and 3)
More to come soon...
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Atheism vs. Theism
God. Allah. Yahweh... Three names of the God of the three largest monotheistic religions. Billions believe in them, millions have died (or killed) for them as well. Indeed, violence due to religious differences is commonplace in some parts of the world, such as certain African nations, and just about the entire middle east. Why is religion so integral a part of so many lives?
I don't claim to know the answer. I do refute, however, the supposed existence of a god. First I will analyze the issue from a lack-of-evidence point of view. The truth is, there are ZERO empirical facts indicative of God. A theist may postulate however that there are many things science cannot explain, therefore God must exist. Although I myself am a scientist, and I do indeed admit to certain shortcomings of scientific theories, these shortcomings do not necessitate the existence of God. In fact, the existence of God would cause even further gaps, since such a God would also require an explanation of origin to any truth-seeking fellow.
A theist, as mentioned before, might implore such a skeptical mind as mine to have faith. But, I ask, why? As a counterexample, if I were to hypothesize the existence of a large pink colored fellow named Wally, invisible to all but me, would the same call to faith be in order? Of course not! At least, not to any of sound mind. But each hypothesis shares the same amount of empirical, experimentally verifiable evidence: zero.
There are many other arguments against a god. These include inflationary big bang theory, evolutionary biology, and many logical inconsistencies of God based on the qualities typically given to him by followers. I shall not delve into the first two theories, mainly due to their extensive nature. I do however suggest reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins for a thorough explanation of each. As far as the logical proofs of God's nonexistence go, I shall save them for another time.
'Til next time...
I don't claim to know the answer. I do refute, however, the supposed existence of a god. First I will analyze the issue from a lack-of-evidence point of view. The truth is, there are ZERO empirical facts indicative of God. A theist may postulate however that there are many things science cannot explain, therefore God must exist. Although I myself am a scientist, and I do indeed admit to certain shortcomings of scientific theories, these shortcomings do not necessitate the existence of God. In fact, the existence of God would cause even further gaps, since such a God would also require an explanation of origin to any truth-seeking fellow.
A theist, as mentioned before, might implore such a skeptical mind as mine to have faith. But, I ask, why? As a counterexample, if I were to hypothesize the existence of a large pink colored fellow named Wally, invisible to all but me, would the same call to faith be in order? Of course not! At least, not to any of sound mind. But each hypothesis shares the same amount of empirical, experimentally verifiable evidence: zero.
There are many other arguments against a god. These include inflationary big bang theory, evolutionary biology, and many logical inconsistencies of God based on the qualities typically given to him by followers. I shall not delve into the first two theories, mainly due to their extensive nature. I do however suggest reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins for a thorough explanation of each. As far as the logical proofs of God's nonexistence go, I shall save them for another time.
'Til next time...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)